Search USGS⌕ Search
Home/Archive/USGS

USGS · mcs2026

Mineral commodity summaries 2026

U.S. Geological Survey
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Introduction Each mineral commodity chapter of the 2026 edition of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Mineral Commodity Summaries (MCS) includes information on events, trends, and issues for each mineral commodity as well as discussions and tabular presentations on domestic industry structure, Government programs, tariffs, 5-year salient statistics, and world production, reserves, and resources. The MCS is the earliest comprehensive source of 2025 mineral production data for the world. More than 90 individual minerals and materials are covered by two-page synopses. Abbreviations and units of measure and definitions of selected terms used in the report are in Appendix A and Appendix B, respectively. Reserves and resources information is in Appendix C, which includes “Part A—Resource and Reserve Classification for Minerals” and “Part B—Sources of Reserves Data.” A directory of USGS minerals information country specialists and their responsibilities is in Appendix D. The USGS continually strives to improve the value of its publications to users. Constructive comments and suggestions by readers of the 2026 MCS are welcomed.

Explore related subjects

Mineral Commodity SummariesReport

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

U.S. Geological Survey. 2026-02-06. Mineral commodity summaries 2026. https://doi.org/10.3133/mcs2026

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

Mineral Commodity Summaries subjectReport subject

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2026

Indirect mineral import reliance and provenance

Mineral commodity supply chain analyses rely on international trade data reported by individual countries as quantities of a mineral commodity form imported from (or exported to) a partner. However, export quantities frequently exceed a country’s domestic production, or occur when no production data are reported, suggesting that the trade partner is merely an intermediary in a transshipment. These discrepancies can result in misleading conclusions regarding supply chain vulnerabilities and dependencies. We present a two-stage methodology to reconcile gaps between reported material sources and actual producers. First, we construct trade networks for specific mineral forms, treating production as a type of import to distinguish producing nations from entrepôts. By tracing flows through these networks, we attribute a target country’s imports to original producers via both direct (in a single trade link) and indirect (transferring through intermediaries) pathways. Second, these production-attributed flows are incorporated into multi-stage supply chains to determine the upstream provenance of feedstock for domestic refining and processing. This approach provides a more representative picture of trade reliance. For example, while the United States (U.S.) Geological Survey reports no imports of unwrought antimony metal from Russia in 2022 (U.S. Geological Survey (2025). Mineral Commodity Summaries 2025. 10.3133/mcs2025), our analysis reveals that over 16% of U.S. imports can be traced back to Russian mining through intermediate processing in countries such as China, India, and Vietnam. Additionally, our analysis of the aluminum supply chain shows that while the U.S. is reported as 52% net import reliant on aluminum materials in 2022, it is 100% reliant on foreign bauxite, 7% of which arrived indirectly. This unreported reliance, which is predominantly tied to bauxite mined in Brazil (43%) and Jamaica (28%), highlights our methods ability to capture the supply chain’s dependence on foreign feedstock that may be missing in single-stage trade data.

Mineral Economics↗
USGS2026

Production of mineral commodities and geospatial map of the mineral industries and related infrastructure of China

As part of the U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS) mission to distribute global mineral information and analyze supply chains, this study provides a comprehensive review of the global significance of China’s mineral production and capacity in 2023. Of 77 mineral commodities in the USGS dataset, China produced 74 and was the world’s first-ranked producer for 39 of the 74. Compared to the high share of global mineral production, including up to 98 percent of global gallium production, the country’s share of global mineral reserves was relatively small, ranging from 20 percent (zinc ore) to 52 percent (tungsten ore). China’s imports of metal ores, slag, and ash accounted for 64 percent of global imports of such commodities by value. The country’s exports of base metals and articles of base metal accounted for 17 percent of the global exports. To help nongeographic information system users assess the spatial distribution of mineral mines, processing facilities, and ports for trades in China, this study created a geospatial (also called “georeferenced”) portable document format (GeoPDF) map. In addition, the GeoPDF contains mineral resource tracts (such as antimony, copper, potash, coal, and oil and gas), exploration sites, and energy infrastructure based on the preexisting USGS data.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2025

Methodology and technical input for the 2025 U.S. List of Critical Minerals—Assessing the potential effects of mineral commodity supply chain disruptions on the U.S. economy

The Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Director of the U.S. Geological Survey, is tasked by section 7002 (“Mineral Security”) of title VII (“Critical Minerals”) of the Energy Act of 2020 (Public Law 116–260, December 27, 2020, 116th Congress) with reviewing and revising the methodology used to evaluate mineral commodity supply risk and the U.S. List of Critical Minerals (LCM) no less than every 3 years. Following two previous LCM assessments, this analysis represents the latest technical input for evaluating each mineral commodity’s supply risk and determining their recommended status on the LCM. We evaluated mineral commodity supply risk using two criteria: (1) an economic effects assessment that quantified the potential effects of various trade disruption scenarios on the U.S. economy, and (2) an examination of whether the mineral commodity’s U.S. supply chain relied on a sole domestic producer that represented a single point of failure. For the first criterion, postdisruption equilibrium quantities and prices for each mineral commodity were calculated based on their price elasticities of supply and demand and the availability of excess production capacity for each yearlong foreign trade disruption scenario. Subsequently, a nonlinear optimization routine was used with detailed economic input-output tables to estimate the potential economic effects on the U.S. economy of over 1,200 scenarios for 84 mineral commodities. After accounting for the probability of each scenario’s occurrence, the overall results are presented in terms of changes in U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) by individual industry and the economy overall. The results, which ranged from a net decrease in U.S. GDP of nearly $4.5 billion to a net increase of $33 million, largely reflect U.S. import dependency and world production concentration. Using the Jenks natural breaks optimization method, a statistical classification technique, we categorized the mineral commodities into several classes based on this overall risk quantification. Mineral commodities with annualized probability-weighted net decreases in U.S. GDP greater than $2 million were recommended for inclusion on the LCM. If a mineral commodity did not meet the threshold for inclusion on the LCM under the first criterion, its domestic supply chain was examined under the second criterion, which recommended a mineral commodity for inclusion on the LCM if there was only a single domestic producer. Ultimately, the two criteria resulted in the recommendation of the addition of six mineral commodities (in descending risk order, potash, silicon, copper, silver, rhenium, and lead) to and the removal of two mineral commodities (arsenic and tellurium) from the LCM. By using an economic effects assessment, the results of this analysis provide a prioritization that can also be compared directly against other risk analyses and the cost of various risk mitigation strategies.

Open-File Report↗